TC0-02767

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-02767 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision December 30, 2020 Date de la décision Panel C. Marcinkiewicz Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Lina Anani Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The Appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX appeals the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated January 2, 2020, rejecting his refugee claim. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to substitute a finding that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, or alternatively, refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination.1 DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA),2 I confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection as he has failed to establish his personal or national identity. As a result, this appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleges he will be persecuted by Al-Shabaab if returned to Somalia. Due to his refusal to join them, he believes he has been condemned to death by the group. He also fears the majority clans in Afgoye as he claims to be a member of the minority Garre clan. The Appellant's father was killed in XXXX 2006 by Hawiye men and his mother remarried in XXXX 2007. Subsequently, the Appellant worked as a herder with his stepfather for about 10 years, until mid XXXX 2018 when Al-Shabaab attempted to forcibly recruit him. His stepfather offered to pay them more taxation in exchange for the Appellant not being recruited but Al-Shabaab refused and accused the stepfather of being against them and being Sufi, condemning the entire family to death. They then shot and killed the stepfather. The Appellant ran and informed his mother and the family fled to Mogadishu, staying with a maternal uncle. On XXXX XXXX, 2018, with the help of a smuggler, the Appellant traveled to Canada on a fraudulent passport and shortly thereafter his mother and siblings left Somalia for Nairobi, Kenya where they have remained. ROLE OF RAD [4] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.3 If I determine that the RPD had a meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of the Appellant's oral evidence, I am to defer to their findings. Having listened to the audio recording of the RPD hearing and reviewing the evidence, I find that the RPD did not benefit from any meaningful advantage in assessing the Appellant's evidence in this case. REQUEST FOR AN ORAL HEARING [5] The Appellant has not submitted new evidence for the purposes of this appeal, nor does he request an oral hearing.4 Due to a lack of new evidence, I must proceed without a hearing. ANALYSIS [6] The determinative issues for the RPD related to the Appellant's identity and credibility. Specifically, the RPD noted that despite the challenges of obtaining Somali identity documents, the onus remains on the Appellant to establish, on a balance of probabilities, his identity. Due to various credibility concerns, the RPD weighed the evidence and ultimately concluded that the Appellant had not established his personal or national identity, and as a result refused his refugee claim. Specifically, the RPD found the Appellant failed to establish that he was a member of the minority Garre clan who was a herder for 10 years and lived in Afgoye, Somalia as alleged. [7] The Appellant argues the RPD made numerous errors in its assessment of the Appellant's testimony and supporting documentation intended to establish his personal and national identity. Specifically, it is argued the RPD erred in its assessment of the Appellant's knowledge of the Garre clan and his reliance on his mother for information, made implausibility findings that were not supported by evidence, failed to consider the Appellant's background and education, erred by faulting the Appellant for actions of the smuggler, failed to independently assess the witness' testimony, mischaracterised and incorrectly weighed the documentary evidence from his family and a community group, and not considering the evidence in its totality. All these errors resulted in the Appellant facing an insurmountable obstacle in establishing his identity. Credibility Findings Arising from Appellant's Testimony [8] The RPD found, based on credibility concerns arising from the Appellant's testimony, that he had failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he had resided in Afgoye his entire life or that he was from the Garre clan. It also found that he had not established he was a herder as claimed. Garre Clan Membership [9] The RPD found the Appellant's testimony regarding the Garre clan he claims to belong to and about life in Afgoye where he has claimed to live for almost his entire life in Somalia was "limited and undetailed".5 Specifically, the Appellant was unable to explain in any detail how the Garre clan members are discriminated against, testimony the RPD found vague. The Appellant testified he learned this from his mother but she did not explain why the Garre are discriminated, explaining his duties as a herder of livestock limited his contact with others, an explanation the RPD rejected as the Appellant was not in total isolation and admittedly had some time off from his herding duties. Further, when asked about dominant clans, the Appellant did not know if the Garre clan had any alliances with more dominant clans and relied on what his mother told him, evidence the RPD found problematic as it would be reasonable to expect the Appellant to have his own knowledge of such information if he lived in the region his entire life and in light of the significance of clan affiliation and identity in Somalia. [10] The Appellant argues that the RPD failed to consider that in Somali culture children learn about their clans from their father and the Appellant's father was killed in 2006. It is argued that even though his stepfather was from the Garre clan, "he would have a different lineage"6 and it was normal for the Appellant to have relied on his mother in regard to his knowledge of the Garre clan. The Appellant argues that the RPD's finding was one of implausibility and devoid of an evidentiary basis. Further, the Appellant submits that the RPD "applied a Canadian paradigm"7 by rejecting the Appellant's mother as a source of information, noting that one's family would be the source and means of transmitting clan knowledge to the family. Finally, the Appellant argues that the RPD failed to consider his personal circumstances and had overly high expectations for the Appellant's articulation of his claim. [11] I find the RPD did not err in the assessment of the Appellant's evidence regarding his alleged Garre clan membership. To begin, the Appellant misstates the RPD finding in respect to his mother being the source of his clan knowledge. In my view, reading the decision in context, the issue the RPD had with the Appellant's evidence is that despite claiming he had lived in this region of Somalia his entire life, he was unable to explain how his clan was discriminated or if it was supported by more dominant clans and instead had to rely on his mother for such details. I agree with the RPD, under such circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect him to know how his clan is discriminated or supported by more dominant clans if he lived his entire life in the region. [12] Furthermore, I reject the Appellant's argument that he may not be able to explain in detail about his clan and their treatment by others in Somalia as his father passed away and fathers are the ones who teach their children about their clan. Simply put, this is an argument made without any reference to evidence to support this proposition, as such I reject it. Additionally, I do not accept that his stepfather would not have passed the clan knowledge down to the Appellant because he is of a different "lineage". This ignores the fact that he was also allegedly of the Garre clan, which was the issue, not the stepfather's lineage, and fails to explain why his stepfather would not pass on such information to the Appellant. [13] It is somewhat unclear to me what the Appellant alleges was an implausibility finding, but I assume it relates to his mother passing on knowledge of the Garre clan to the Appellant. I do not see the RPD's finding as one of implausibility in regard to his mother passing on clan knowledge to the Appellant (although the Appellant previously argued it is only passed on through the father) as again, this was not the finding of the RPD but rather that the Appellant would need to rely on his mother's information about discrimination and dominant clan support despite claiming to live there his entire life. It would be reasonable to expect him to gain that knowledge himself through daily life and experiences of living in the region. [14] Finally, I disagree with the Appellant that the RPD failed to consider the cultural context and the Appellant's personal circumstances when considering his evidence. It seems to suggest that due to his lack of formal education and relative youth, he would somehow be ignorant or blind to the realities of daily life for him and other minority Garre clan members. The RPD considered the Appellant's personal circumstances of being a herder from a young age and found that this does not mean he was totally isolated from what was happening elsewhere in the region. I agree and do not accept that someone who is an animal herder, young, and not formally educated is necessarily unintelligent, unsophisticated or incapable of understanding the world around her or him. I do not view an expectation that he would know about why his clan is discriminated against or how they are supported by more dominant clans as overly high or unreasonable because, as pointed out by the RPD, clan membership plays a vital role in societal functioning and personal safety for individuals living in Somalia. 10 Years as a Herder [15] The RPD found the Appellant's testimony regarding his activities as a herder while in Somalia as vague and failed to establish, on balance, he was a herder for almost 10 years as claimed. Specifically, his explanation of taking animals out for grazing, finding water at mid-day, returning them home and bringing to his stepfather's attention any animals that were sick, as vague and undetailed in light of his lengthy experience herding. Additionally, considering the Appellant's evidence of his family having a herd of 90 animals as something he did not consider large and only sufficient for the basic needs of the family, the RPD found the Appellant's evidence was inconsistent with the objective documentary evidence, which reveals the region has been plagued by famine, poverty, and violence for many years. [16] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred by failing to consider the Appellant would have been a child during his years as a herder and that "[c]learly, he would not have the knowledge that an adult would have".8 It is argued that the RPD's finding regarding the Appellant informing his stepfather that an animal is sick to be unreasonable given his age. Further, it is argued the RPD made implausibility findings to reject the Appellant's evidence in respect to herding but failed to indicate what evidence it relied upon. [17] Having independently analysed the record, I find the RPD erred in part. I agree with the Appellant that it was unreasonable to find that the Appellant's response regarding how he would tend to an ill animal by bringing it to his stepfather as vague and undetailed. In my assessment, this was a specific and reasonable response to the question and as such I draw no negative inference from this evidence. [18] Having said that, I agree that the Appellant's overall evidence regarding his herding activities was indeed vague. He provided very basic details of how he took care of 90 animals, essentially that he took them outside and gave them water once a day. While I acknowledge that he was indeed a child and teenager throughout these years, I do not accept that this factor alone explains his lack of details regarding his herding activities. After all, in my respectful view, even children or teenagers can become knowledgeable and even gain expertise in certain subjects or field after being involved in them for almost a decade. In other words, even despite his young age, I find it would be reasonable to expect someone in the Appellant's circumstances to be able to provide in more detail what their duties and requirements were as a herder, especially given that he was entrusted with such significant responsibilities from an early age. His inability to do so undermines his claim of being a herder in Afgoye. [19] Additionally, I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's characterization of the family's 90 animal herd as not being large and only sufficient for meeting the basic needs of the family as vague and inconsistent with the objective evidence. I note that the RPD considered the Appellant's evidence in context of the objective evidence and in essence, found that his testimony was inconsistent with that evidence. I agree. In addition to the evidence cited by the RPD, I note that over half of Somalis live below the poverty line and famine and drought that largely affect agriculture and pastoralism have unfortunately been a common and persistent problem in Somalia.9 Further, the available country related evidence indicates that "Somalia is one of the poorest countries in the world and an estimated 43% of the population of 12.3 million 'live in extreme poverty (less than 1 USD a day)'. Somalia's GDP per capita is USD 284, which is the fifth lowest in the world".10 Within this context, I do find the Appellant's evidence of his family's 90 animal herd as not being large and only sufficient for basic needs of the family as implausible, and outside the realm of what could reasonably be expected under the circumstances when living in a country as impoverished as Somalia. [20] In my respectful view, the Appellant's overall evidence in this area leads me to find, on a balance of probabilities, that he was not a herder growing up in Somalia. Somali Currency [21] The RPD took a negative inference from the Appellant's inability to identify Somali currency by name. Specifically, when asked twice to name the currency, the Appellant was only able to respond that it is "Somali money".11 The RPD found it would be reasonable to expect the Appellant to know the name of Somali currency if indeed he had lived there his whole life and his inability to do so undermined his credibility. [22] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred by not taking into account the Appellant's age and level of sophistication. It is further argued that it is "doubtful he knew what the word meant" and the RPD erred by having exceedingly high expectations for someone who lived in a rural area as a herder and had little interaction with money as it was handled by his stepfather. The Appellant alleges the RPD failed to take a contextual approach to the evidence. [23] Having independently reviewed the evidence, I find the RPD did not err as alleged. I disagree with the Appellant's argument that his age and level of sophistication may be responsible for his incorrect answer or that a contextual approach would result in a different finding. Simply put, I do not accept that someone who has lived in a country for almost 19 years would not be able to identify the country's currency, even if they were unsophisticated or had little interaction with money. To be clear, I do not accept and am not prepared to generalize that someone who is an animal herder or farmer for that matter is automatically unsophisticated and lacking knowledge about basic aspects of life in their country. While the Appellant may not have handled currency himself, I do not accept that he would not have been exposed to the Somali "shilling",12 during his entire life. [24] Finally, I also do not agree that it is "doubtful" the Appellant even knew what he was being asked as there is no evidence of him not understanding or being confused. The questions were clear and he was instructed at the beginning of the hearing to inform the RPD member if he did not understand a question posed to him, which he did not do when asked about Somali currency. As such, I reject this argument. For these reasons, I find this evidence to be indicative of someone who has not lived in Somalia for any meaningful period and this undermines the Appellant's general credibility. Name Used in Passport to Come to Canada [25] The RPD found that the Appellant's testimony that he only knew the first name of "Jamal" in the passport he used to travel to Canada as lacking credibility. Specifically, the RPD found if the Appellant hired a smuggler, he would know at least the full name in the passport in the event he was questioned by airport officials. The RPD drew a negative inference from this in regard to the Appellant's claim that he came to Canada with the help of a smuggler and on a false passport. [26] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred as the Appellant provided all the details he was aware of and he was simply following the advice of the smuggler. It is further argued that the RPD speculated as to what the smuggler would inform the Appellant in regard to the passport and the Appellant did not personally possess the passport as it was held by the smuggler. [27] I agree with the Appellant and find the RPD erred in their assessment of this evidence. While I acknowledge that common sense would dictate a person travelling on a fraudulent passport would not only know the name in the passport but also other bio-data information, I note that the Appellant testified to never actually having the passport in his possession, was instructed by the smuggler his name was "Jamal", was unable to look inside it, and travelled with the smuggler posing as mother and son.13 Given this scenario, I do not find it unreasonable that the Appellant would not know any further details as the evidence indicates all of the arrangements were handled by the smuggler. As a result, I draw no negative inferences from this evidence. Evidence of the Identity Witness [28] The RPD considered the testimony of the identity witness and noted that the Appellant's and witness' testimony was consistent regarding the witness' trips to Afgoye to visit his aunt, the Appellant's neighbour. The RPD also characterized the relationship as "casual" and found they "did not know each other as well as was suggested by the claimant".14 As examples of this, the RPD noted the witness believed the Appellant spoke a Garre dialect which the Appellant does not and the witness had not met everyone in the Appellant's family while the Appellant had met the witness' mother. Based on these details and the relationship, the RPD found the witness' knowledge of the Appellant was insufficient to establish his personal identity and assigned little weight to this evidence. The RPD also found the witness' evidence did not overcome the overall credibility concerns emanating from the Appellant's testimony. [29] The Appellant argues the RPD erred by failing to consider that the witness placed the Appellant in Afgoye and this supports his identity and was the purpose of the witness. It is argued that the RPD erred by "demand[ing] that the witness' role was to overcome credibility concerns that he had no knowledge of".15 Further, it is argued the RPD ignored the probative value of the witness' evidence and erred by failing to assess all of the corroborative evidence prior to making credibility findings, instead relying on negative credibility findings relating to the Appellant to discount the witness' testimony. [30] Having independently considered the evidence and decision, I find no errors in the RPD's assessment of the witness' testimony. The RPD rightfully acknowledged the consistent information provided by the witness and Appellant as well as their relationship being casual. The Appellant does not dispute this finding and I agree with the assessment of the relationship as it is reasonable to expect, if the witness and Appellant saw each other several times per year over a span of 6 or 7 years, the witness would have met the Appellant's entire family given they were neighbours with the witness' aunt who the witness was staying with. [31] Furthermore, I find that the witness believing the Appellant spoke the Garre dialect when he does not speaks volume in terms of their alleged relationship from when they were in Somalia. In my view, it is reasonable to expect two people who spent time with each other several times per year, over a span of years, to know such basic details about each other. Rather than placing the Appellant in Somalia during the time in question, the witness' lack of knowledge about such details calls into question whether they indeed knew each other while growing up in Somalia. [32] Finally, I disagree that the RPD erred by finding the witness' evidence did not overcome the credibility concerns of the Appellant. In my view, the RPD weighed the evidence and concluded the witness' evidence did not outweigh the Appellant's evidence that the RPD found to lack credibility. This is precisely the task of decision makers, to assess and weigh evidence, and decide what evidence is worthy of less or more weight. In this case, while acknowledging the positive and negative aspects of the witness' evidence, the RPD nevertheless concluded that the concerns regarding the Appellant remained or were not alleviated by the witness. That is a reasonable conclusion and finding to reach in light of the evidence. As such, I find no error. Affidavit Evidence from Mother, Advocate, and Uncle [33] The RPD considered the affidavit evidence presented by the Appellant. Regarding the affidavit from the Appellant's mother, the RPD found that while it contains information about his name, Somali citizenship, and membership in the Garre clan, it does not provide other details such as his father's name, the Appellant's date and place of birth, and where he lived in Somalia, information the RPD considers relevant to establishing the Appellant's identity. The RPD noted the same concerns with the Appellant's uncle's affidavit, referring to them as "undetailed" and "not neutral sources".16 Relying on the case of Huang, the RPD found that the Appellant's lack of credibility led it to have concerns regarding the reliability of the affidavit evidence and gave the evidence little weight towards establishing the Appellant's identity. Finally, the RPD considered the affidavit from an advocate named David Maina who affirmed the mother's affidavit based on information from another individual who claims Somali nationality. However, the RPD gave it no weight as it was a hearsay document and the Somali national was not mentioned in the Appellant's mother's affidavit as being known to her. [34] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred by giving these affidavits little weight. Specifically, the Appellant notes all the information provided by the Appellant's mother's and uncle's affidavits and argues they are detailed, important, and corroborates the Appellant's account. Further, it is argued that it is an error to consider the affidavits for what they do not say instead of focusing on what they do say and it is also an error to discount the evidence simply because it comes from relatives or non-neutral sources. Finally, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred by giving the affidavit of the advocate no weight as this type of evidence is required for an affidavit "in Kenya as per a research document in the National Documentation Package (NDP)",17 and the RPD itself found Somalia does not issue identity documents. Affidavit of Mother and Advocate [35] I find the RPD erred in part. Specifically, I agree with the Appellant that the RPD erred by giving the affidavit evidence, at least in part, little weight because they came from family members, or non-neutral sources. Evidence coming from such sources, such as the Appellant's mother, is not inherently or necessarily problematic or worthy of little weight for this reason alone. To find otherwise, a refugee claimant would face a very difficult task of proving their claim if automatically unable to rely on evidence from those who they know. [36] Despite this error, I have independently assessed the evidence and find the affidavits are worthy of no weight as I find that they are not reliable nor genuine. To begin, I agree with the RPD that the affidavit of the advocate is hearsay and unreliable. In essence, what this declaration tries to accomplish is to say that the advocate swears that Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX came in with a Somali passport to say that the Appellant's mother, who has no identity documents nor provided even a picture to show she exists, is not only Somali but also the Appellant's mother. The deponent in this affidavit, that being the advocate, knows neither person and is not in any position to confirm or attest to their relationship beyond what these individuals told him, nor is he in a position to swear to the accuracy of the information, only that he knows Mr. XXXX as confirming the Appellant's mother's identity. I place no weight on such evidence and simply because it is sworn does not mean it has to be given weight. [37] Additionally, Mr. XXXX himself does not actually swear to this information, even though he possesses a Somali passport, and in my view, it begs the question as to why Mr. XXXX did not do so and say he knew the Appellant and his mother in Somalia. Finally, the Appellant's mother makes no mention of Mr. XXXX in her affidavit at all or to explain how she knows Mr. XXXX and why he is able to swear to her personal identity. [38] For all of these reasons, I give the affidavits no weight. Affidavit of Uncle [39] The RPD considered the affidavit from the Appellant's uncle in Somalia and like the mother's affidavit, found it lacked sufficient details relating to the Appellant's father, date and place of birth, or where the Appellant resided prior to coming to Canada. Noting the non-neutral source of the affidavit, along with the lack of details, the RPD concluded it deserved little weight. [40] The Appellant argues the RPD erred as the uncle's affidavit indeed contained relevant details and in essence should be worthy of more weight, irrespective of the fact that it came from a family member which, as found above, does not necessarily impugn the evidence itself. [41] I have independently assessed the uncle's affidavit and while it does contain some pertinent details relevant to the merits of the claim, in terms of the Appellant's identity it only connects him to his mother and states all three (including the uncle) are Somali citizens. As noted by the RPD, it fails to mention when or where the Appellant was born. [42] Furthermore, upon reviewing the original version of the uncle's affidavit prior to translation, I am drawn to the manner in which the affidavit is written, with certain words, like religions, months and certain locations written in English, while the rest of it is in Somali.18 I find it peculiar that the Appellant's uncle would write a declaration in such a way, using English words like "Muslim, Suni, Sufi", "Mogadishu" (especially when the Somali version is on the letterhead), "[XXXX XXXX XXXX 2006", "XXXX XXXX, 2018", "Canada", "XXXX XXXX, 2018", and "Nairobi, Kenya". There is no evidence that these parts of the affidavit have been interpreted or that the uncle knows English, which if this is the case, it would be reasonable to expect him to simply write his nephew, the Appellant, a letter in English. [43] Now in this context, it is in my view important to examine the source of this document. The Appellant's uncle was involved and arranged for a smuggler to ensure the Appellant's flight from Somalia on a fraudulent Norwegian passport. While certainly this is not the fault of the Appellant himself, and no negative inference was drawn from this fact, it is evidence of the uncle's connections to unscrupulous individuals operating in the smuggling and fraud document industry in Somalia. This indicates the uncle has the willingness and ability to obtain and use, even if not personally for himself, non-genuine documents if they serve the intended purpose. [44] Furthermore, according to the Appellant's immigration documents, his uncle paid the smuggler $XXXX USD,19 and while in his testimony he was unsure if it was US dollars,20 regardless of the specific dollar currency, it would clearly be a considerable sum of money given the extreme poverty mentioned above that unfortunately exists in Somalia. Again, this evidence reveals that the uncle has access to significant financial resources. [45] Finally, the objective evidence indicates that "document fraud is highly prevalent in Somalia" and "can take the form of fake documents, or genuine documents that have been obtained on the basis of fraudulent information". 21 When this evidence is considered in context of what the uncle has arranged for the Appellant in the past, along with the unique format in which the declaration from the uncle is written, I find it more likely than not that the content of the document is not genuine but rather was fabricated to boost the Appellant's refugee claim and as such, I give it no weight in support of the Appellant's identity. XXXX XXXX XXXX Letter [46] The RPD assessed the letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX and found that none of the factors they described are determinative of a person's identity. Specifically, it found that certain details, such as Somali territories or clans can be learned, and other factors, such as language and physical appearance, are not necessarily indicative of citizenship. It also noted that the XXXX representatives relied on evidence from the witness which the RPD had an opportunity to assess on its own. It concluded that the letter is worthy of little weight in establishing the Appellant's identity. [47] The Appellant argues the RPD erred in its assessment of this evidence, noting the expertise and involvement of the organization in immigration and refugee matters in Canada. Further, it is argued the RPD incorrectly discounted the letter because some of the information came from the witness, whose evidence the RPD incorrectly assessed to begin with and was blinded by in the assessment of this letter. Also, it is noted that some of the important information contained in the letter was independently assessed by XXXX, some of which, such as knowledge of the country and language are capable of establishing identity. Finally, it is argued by failing to consider the evidence in totality, the RPD created an insurmountable hurdle for the Appellant to overcome when establishing identity. [48] Having reviewed the evidence, I find the RPD did not err as alleged. I agree with the Appellant that the organization relied on evidence other than that of the identity witness, and while I accept generally the content of the letter, I find that the factors enumerated by the organization, such as knowledge of language and geography, along with physical features of the Appellant, can only prove the Appellant is of Somali background, which does not prove his personal identity or his nationality. Despite the organization's admirable and long standing involvement with immigrants and refugees, the organization has no means of establishing or confirming if the Appellant is truly who he claims to be and in my respectful view, the letter overstates what the author can actually determine based on the details the Appellant and the witness provided. Perhaps he is of Somali background but a citizen of another country. Or perhaps he is a citizen of Somalia but of different personal identity (name). Unfortunately for the Appellant, I find the evidence from XXXX is incapable of establishing facts relating to nationality and personal identity based on information obtained from the Appellant and the witness. [49] Furthermore, it is unclear to me if or how the organization made any efforts to test the credibility of the Appellant or witness and only states that the witness confirmed the name of the Appellant and that he is of the Garre clan and from Somalia. I find, given the RPD had an opportunity to assess the testimony of the witness, it is not required to defer or blindly accept this aspect of evidence from the XXXX organization. [50] In summary, if the issue in this case was to establish Somali background or ethnicity, I would give this evidence significant weight. However, given the Appellant has to prove his identity as being who he says he is and a national of Somalia, I give the XXXX letter little weight in establishing the Appellant's identity. In Conclusion [51] Having considered the evidence, findings of the RPD, arguments of the Appellant, and conducting my own independent analysis, I find based on the totality of the evidence that he has failed to establish his personal and national identity as a Somali citizen. This is based on his testimony regarding his limited knowledge of the Garre clan and why they are mistreated or which clans, if any, help and protect them; his limited and implausible testimony regarding his herding activities and the family's herd of animals; and his inability to state Somalia's national currency, details that in my view would be reasonable to expect the Appellant to know if he has lived in Somalia his entire life as alleged. I give this problematic evidence significant weight in finding the Appellant failed to establish his identity. Furthermore, I find the affidavits from his mother, an advocate, and his uncle to be unreliable and as a result give them no weight in support of his claim. Further, as explained above, I found the witness' evidence to be deficient in terms of establishing the personal identity and nationality of the Appellant. [52] Given my finding that the Appellant has failed to establish his identity, there is no requirement for me to consider the merits of his claim.22 CONCLUSION [53] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) Christopher Marcinkiewicz Christopher Marcinkiewicz December 30, 2020 Date 1 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at p. 18, paras. 53-54. 2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), SC 2001, c 27, as amended, at ss. 111(1)(a). 3Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, [2016] 4 FCR 157; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145, [2019] 2 FCR 597. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Written Statement, at p. 3, paras. 1-2. 5 RPD Decision, Reasons at para. 12. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at p. 5, para. 9. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at p. 7, para. 12. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at p. 8, para. 15. 9 RPD Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Somalia, 30 April 2019, Item 1.8, p. 18. 10 RPD Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Somalia, 30 April 2019, Item 1.8, p. 54. 11 RPD Decision, Reasons at para. 21. 12 RPD Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Somalia, 30 April 2019, Item 1.5, at p. 12. 13 RPD Hearing, Recording from December 16, 2019, at [1:33:00-1:35:00] 14 RPD Decision, Reasons at para. 24. 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at p. 11, para. 28. 16 RPD Decision, Reasons at para. 28. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at p. 15, para. 38. 18 RPD Exhibit 9, p. 1. 19 RPD Exhibit 1, p. 44. 20 RPD Hearing, Audio at [01:33:00-01:34:00] 21 RPD Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Somalia, 30 April 2019, Item 1.13, p. 25. 22 Husein v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2044-97), May 29, 1998. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-02767 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français